what is ideal wing loading

[maninblk]

Ok been going over this over and over in my head. What is the ideal wing loading for 3d, Imac? It seems to be some very small differences in the airframes on the ARF market today...

[MODE 1]

depends on the size of model.
Give us some model sizes you intend using and that will help give you a number

[maninblk]

Ok, 15lbs, 78"wingspan, 16lbs, 87"wingspan, 12lbs, 74"wingspan.

[The_Wreck]

There is much discussion on wing loading, but actually cubic loading is a much better indicator of how "lightly" a plane will fly. 40% airplanes have much higher wing loadings than small electrics, however, if the cubic loadings are the same they will fly very much alike.

I attached a spreadsheet that does wing loading and cubic loadings for a bunch of planes, including some full scale. Just input the first 3 columns and it does the rest.

[Tired Old Man]

Any negative number is the best wing loading. Requires no engine because it's lighter than air.

[maninblk]

Ok so looking at the numbers, is it safe to say that you want your stall speed lower than the wing loading for a good light flying plane?

@tired old man , what are you talking about?

[maninblk]

ok played with the calc, help with explanation on the cubic loading, just to give you a better idea, i am looking at all the available 50cc airframes, and comparing them......

[The_Wreck]

	Quote: Originally Posted by maninblk
	Ok so looking at the numbers, is it safe to say that you want your stall speed lower than the wing loading for a good light flying plane? @tired old man , what are you talking about?

No you cannot draw that conclusion, but lighter cubic loading (the green column ) means a lighter flying plane, and generally lighter is better.

Based on the planes I have owned on that List planes with cubic loadings under 7 fly super light, planes under 8 fly light, aerobatic planes under 9 still fly really good. The wing loadings (the column before the green one) are all over the place based on the size of the plane.

I can say because I owned them both. My pilot 37.5% Yak definitely feels more floaty than the E-Flight Brio. Which is confirmed by the lower cubic loading, eventhough its wing loading is twice as high.

[ds1rc]

Try this link http://www.ef-uk.net/data/wcl.htm

[maninblk]

thanks alot, i do have a better understanding of what i am looking for. I need to loose two pounds off my plane. wow. but can a DA 50 pull a 12 lbs plane with out ripping it apart? LOL

[MODE 1]

	Quote: Originally Posted by maninblk
	Ok so looking at the numbers, is it safe to say that you want your stall speed lower than the wing loading for a good light flying plane? @tired old man , what are you talking about?

Your thread confusing me I'm still unclear as to what your asking for.
Wing loadings about weight placed on a surface area where that area provides lift and has to counteract the load before sufficient lift is generated and thats just being very general in its description because it doesn't include the wing profile effect which can knock the figures out the park.

You gave some random numbers before which made no sense. To calculate WL you need the weight of the model as you gave already but also the wing area. For that you need the length and cords.

A lighter WL is better for some things but also a hindrance to others. e.g light = slower flight speeds but heavy can make some models more stable.

You gonna use a 50 on a 74" model??....why??

[Tired Old Man]

Likely because many others have done it. More power equals more performance, right? Never mind that a smaller engine is less weight, effecting that wing loading while still providing the needed power.

[MODE 1]

Thanks Pat .....looks like you and I are on the same page at least.....oh well

[maninblk]

@ Mode1 I have the hanger 9 Extra 260 29%. 78" wingspan with 1134 sqare ft, which is 30.4 wingloading. with out getting into the physics and dynamics of wingloading. I do have some understanding of the aerodynamics of it. I just wanted to do some comparisons of the wing loadings of different 50cc airframes on the market so the calculators worked out good for me. what i am seeing is that most of the 50cc airframes are actually bigger than 29% which is what mine is, so much larger wings and higher weights. most are in the 16-18lbs range. Now what i come away with is that my model is right around 15.5 wet/rtf but the wing loading and cube loading is high, (wingloading=30.4 / cube loading=10.9) that explains why this plane fly so much more heavy than most. now what i am working on is cutting weight out of this plane to see if it will fly better. My goal is to get it down to 13lbs if it can still handle the DA 50.... all that is before i plop down $1000 for a new airframe and servos to move to the 30% size.....

[RTK]

For me lighter always flies better. I haven't flown an ARF yet that is too light and too overly powered, but I have a couple that some might consider close to that, they still have lighter wing loads than most though

I would not recommend putting a DA50 in any 13lbs plane for 2 reasons. One being mentioned already, and the other being the plane would not withstand that much of an engine.
I have not seen an ARF in the 50cc range that comes in much lighter than 16-18lbs. If you were to take 3lbs out of your plane I don't think it would stay together. I have seen that h9 260 fly at about your weight and it isn't that bad from what I experienced.